id stringlengths 17 17 | body stringlengths 0 19.5k | posted_at stringlengths 24 24 | karma int64 -6 185 | parent_comment_id stringlengths 17 17 ⌀ | post_id stringlengths 17 17 | post_title stringlengths 2 127 | post_slug stringlengths 2 61 | post_url stringlengths 20 146 | post_author stringclasses 214
values | post_posted_at stringlengths 24 24 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ps9oCx4apXyLpwqAq | I would typically call
MLP(x) = f(x) + (MLP(x) - f(x))
a non-linear decomposition as f(x) is an arbitrary function.
Regardless, any decomposition into a computational graph (that we can prove is extensionally equal) is fine.
For instance, if it's the case that MLP(x) = combine(h(x), g(x)) (via extensional equality)... | 2022-12-05T01:50:30.466Z | 2 | amJ6jtDX8TfFNEmA3 | JvZhhzycHu2Yd57RN | Causal Scrubbing: a method for rigorously testing interpretability hypotheses [Redwood Research] | causal-scrubbing-a-method-for-rigorously-testing | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JvZhhzycHu2Yd57RN/causal-scrubbing-a-method-for-rigorously-testing | LawrenceC | 2022-12-03T00:58:36.973Z |
p946iQfZZMvsf5cdM | > I am happy to take a “non-worst-case” empirical perspective in studying this problem. In particular, I suspect it will be very helpful – and possibly necessary – to use incidental empirical properties of deep learning systems, which often have a surprising amount of useful emergent structure (as I will discuss more u... | 2022-12-15T18:58:49.658Z | 16 | null | L4anhrxjv8j2yRKKp | How "Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision" Fits Into a Broader Alignment Scheme | how-discovering-latent-knowledge-in-language-models-without | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/L4anhrxjv8j2yRKKp/how-discovering-latent-knowledge-in-language-models-without | Collin | 2022-12-15T18:22:40.109Z |
5Z2azFypoeaXJ6TLE | > Simulations are not the most efficient way for A and B to reach their agreement
Are you claiming that the marginal returns to simulation are *never* worth the costs? I'm skeptical. I think it's quite likely that some number of acausal trade simulations are run even if that isn't where most of the information comes f... | 2023-03-04T01:13:10.256Z | 5 | null | 3RSq3bfnzuL3sp46J | Acausal normalcy | acausal-normalcy | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3RSq3bfnzuL3sp46J/acausal-normalcy | Andrew_Critch | 2023-03-03T23:34:33.971Z |
AySJNYqpweYRg8iqY | comment TLDR: Adversarial examples are a weapon against the AIs we can use for good and solving adversarial robustness would let the AIs harden themselves.
I haven't read this yet (I will later : ) ), so it's possible this is mentioned, but I'd note that *exploiting* the lack of adversarial robustness could also be us... | 2023-03-12T03:54:14.507Z | 6 | null | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
ErJ3bvLtFQtGeoXNJ | I roughly agree with Akash's comment.
But also some additional points:
- It's decently likely that it will be pretty easy to get GPT-7 to avoid breaking the law or other egregious issue. As systems get more capable, basic alignment approaches get better at preventing stuff we can measure well. It's plausible that sca... | 2023-03-30T16:38:17.101Z | 3 | null | zDf7fnentCFTdK3K6 | Want to win the AGI race? Solve alignment. | want-to-win-the-agi-race-solve-alignment | https://www.forourposterity.com/want-to-win-the-agi-race-solve-alignment/ | leopold | 2023-03-29T17:40:36.187Z |
hkqk6sFphuSHSHxE4 | > So I propose “somebody gets autonomous learning to work stably for LLMs (or similarly-general systems)” as a possible future fast-takeoff scenario.
Broadly speaking, autonomous learning doesn't seem particularly distinguished relative to supervised learning unless you have data limitations. For instance, suppose tha... | 2023-04-11T23:08:25.461Z | 27 | 7yAJbkDtMepxDvcMe | hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR | Evolution provides no evidence for the sharp left turn | evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR/evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | Quintin Pope | 2023-04-11T18:43:07.776Z |
CShisr4paxQ8mWyZ7 | (Note: this comment is rambly and repetitive, but I decided not to spend time cleaning it up)
It sounds like you believe something like:
"There are autonomous learning style approaches which are considerably better than the efficiency on next token prediction."
And more broadly, you're making a claim like 'current le... | 2023-04-12T16:47:02.142Z | 23 | ABpQQ7AZup7KbqmEz | hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR | Evolution provides no evidence for the sharp left turn | evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR/evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | Quintin Pope | 2023-04-11T18:43:07.776Z |
2Go4DTBCfcxDXghDy | Distilling inference based approaches into learning is usually reasonably straightforward. I think this also applies in this case.
This doesn't necessarily apply to 'learning how to learn'.
(That said, I'm less sold that retrieval + chain of thought 'mostly solves autonmomous learning') | 2023-04-13T00:43:06.136Z | 5 | rpqvchJxQcPNtfnds | hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR | Evolution provides no evidence for the sharp left turn | evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hvz9qjWyv8cLX9JJR/evolution-provides-no-evidence-for-the-sharp-left-turn | Quintin Pope | 2023-04-11T18:43:07.776Z |
9AmCp7ykwP73vDNft | Counterargument: you can just defend against these AIs running amuck.
As long as most AIs are systematically trying to further human goals you don't obviously get doomed (though the situation is scary).
There could be offense-defense inbalances, but there are also 'tyranny of the majority' advantages. | 2023-04-16T23:28:32.571Z | 3 | null | RJEWuHZBr85RMYRp4 | Top lesson from GPT: we will probably destroy humanity "for the lulz" as soon as we are able. | top-lesson-from-gpt-we-will-probably-destroy-humanity-for | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RJEWuHZBr85RMYRp4/top-lesson-from-gpt-we-will-probably-destroy-humanity-for | Shmi | 2023-04-16T20:27:19.665Z |
egdh9jAXe85HmwNaH | Huh? Definitely some humans will try to defend... | 2023-04-17T01:00:48.852Z | 5 | XfoujwesmngDW9drj | RJEWuHZBr85RMYRp4 | Top lesson from GPT: we will probably destroy humanity "for the lulz" as soon as we are able. | top-lesson-from-gpt-we-will-probably-destroy-humanity-for | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RJEWuHZBr85RMYRp4/top-lesson-from-gpt-we-will-probably-destroy-humanity-for | Shmi | 2023-04-16T20:27:19.665Z |
MScxqqfwzzmrtnHfh | This post seems to argue for fast/discontinuous takeoff without explicitly noting that people working in alignment often disagree. Further I think many of the arguments given here for fast takeoff seem sloppy or directly wrong on my own views.
It seems reasonable to just give your views without noting disagreement, bu... | 2023-04-18T16:35:48.019Z | 15 | null | eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi | The basic reasons I expect AGI ruin | the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi/the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | Rob Bensinger | 2023-04-18T03:37:01.496Z |
vLZaFtY6YCsABMXja | > A common misconception is that STEM-level AGI is dangerous because of something murky about "agents" or about self-awareness. Instead, I'd say that the danger is inherent to the nature of action sequences that push the world toward some sufficiently-hard-to-reach state.
>
> Call such sequences "plans".
>
> If you sam... | 2023-04-18T16:47:24.900Z | 6 | null | eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi | The basic reasons I expect AGI ruin | the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi/the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | Rob Bensinger | 2023-04-18T03:37:01.496Z |
E9JimTRJcXpKym8wT | > I agree that much of LW has moved past the foom argument and is solidly on Eliezers side relative to Robin Hanson; Hanson's views seem increasingly silly as time goes on (though they seemed much more plausible a decade ago, before e.g. the rise of foundation models and the shortening of timelines to AGI). The debate ... | 2023-04-18T16:52:57.452Z | 3 | MfcncYEc8f8unERPq | 87EzRDAHkQJptLthE | But why would the AI kill us? | but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | So8res | 2023-04-17T18:42:39.720Z |
LrEoXGedJek5LMfDd | If you condition on misaligned AI takeover, my current (extremely rough) probabilities are:
- 50% chance the AI kills > 99% of people
- Conditional on killing >99% of people, 2/3 chance the AI kills literally everyone
Edit: I now think mass death and extinction are notably less likely than these probabilites. Perhaps... | 2023-04-18T17:27:13.561Z | 26 | null | 87EzRDAHkQJptLthE | But why would the AI kill us? | but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | So8res | 2023-04-17T18:42:39.720Z |
45LkJyYZ5zAe5MxPh | I really hope this isn't a sticking point for people. I also strongly disagree with this being 'a fundamental point'. | 2023-04-18T17:28:54.265Z | 23 | JKERbBzy4wfogyoaE | 87EzRDAHkQJptLthE | But why would the AI kill us? | but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | So8res | 2023-04-17T18:42:39.720Z |
dA5QSgtxyKfH33yw6 | [endorsed] | 2023-04-18T23:06:42.354Z | 3 | jFHHu5u2Cvz6kAufn | 87EzRDAHkQJptLthE | But why would the AI kill us? | but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | So8res | 2023-04-17T18:42:39.720Z |
xGSGYP3BiiJQLQENu | I think my views on takeoff/timelines are broadly similar to Paul's except that I have somewhat shorter takeoffs and timelines (I think this is due to thinking AI is a bit easier and also due to misc deference).
> ... Wait, why not? If AI exceeds the human capability range on STEM four years from now, I would call tha... | 2023-04-18T23:21:15.668Z | 9 | HXtgRpGxPxZmxZHxe | eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi | The basic reasons I expect AGI ruin | the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eaDCgdkbsfGqpWazi/the-basic-reasons-i-expect-agi-ruin | Rob Bensinger | 2023-04-18T03:37:01.496Z |
gxx2JsyyK7b9W6JYs | I broadly disagree with Yudkowsky on his vision of FOOM and think he's pretty sloppy wrt. AI takeoff overall.
But, I do think you're quite likely to get a quite rapid singularity if people don't intentionally slow things down. For instance, I broadly think the modeling in [Tom Davidson's takeoff speeds report](https:... | 2023-04-27T18:01:47.787Z | 10 | null | LF3DDZ67knxuyadbm | Contra Yudkowsky on Doom from Foom #2 | contra-yudkowsky-on-doom-from-foom-2 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LF3DDZ67knxuyadbm/contra-yudkowsky-on-doom-from-foom-2 | jacob_cannell | 2023-04-27T00:07:20.360Z |
ktSb9kbzfqxJFar5C | See also [this section where Tom talks about kinks in the underlying capabilities leading to rapid progress](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DZy1qgSal2xwDRR0wOPBroYE_RDV1_2vvhwVz4dxCVc/edit#heading=h.apdvo0uwo5qe) | 2023-04-27T18:17:51.074Z | 3 | gxx2JsyyK7b9W6JYs | LF3DDZ67knxuyadbm | Contra Yudkowsky on Doom from Foom #2 | contra-yudkowsky-on-doom-from-foom-2 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LF3DDZ67knxuyadbm/contra-yudkowsky-on-doom-from-foom-2 | jacob_cannell | 2023-04-27T00:07:20.360Z |
seMfCZxnLmByWaJPo | I can't tell if this post is trying to discuss communicating about anything related to AI or alignment or is trying to more specifically discuss communication aimed at general audiences. I'll assume it's discussing arbitrary communication on AI or alignment.
I feel like this post doesn't engage sufficiently with the c... | 2023-04-29T18:17:46.513Z | 50 | null | mLubC65xXekk5tkug | [SEE NEW EDITS] No, *You* Need to Write Clearer | see-new-edits-no-you-need-to-write-clearer | https://www.thinkingmuchbetter.com/nickai/fieldbuilding/no-you-need-to-write-clearer.html | Nicholas Kross | 2023-04-29T05:04:01.559Z |
5kopfKcwui6bitbHf | > Everyone, everyone, literally everyone in AI alignment is severely wrong about at least one core thing, and disagreements still persist on seemingly-obviously-foolish things.
If by 'severely wrong about at least one core thing' you just mean 'systemically severely miscalibrated on some very important topic ', then m... | 2023-04-29T18:18:33.801Z | 6 | null | mLubC65xXekk5tkug | [SEE NEW EDITS] No, *You* Need to Write Clearer | see-new-edits-no-you-need-to-write-clearer | https://www.thinkingmuchbetter.com/nickai/fieldbuilding/no-you-need-to-write-clearer.html | Nicholas Kross | 2023-04-29T05:04:01.559Z |
dCP73sQ8jaW4udGps | I agree that EY is quite overconfident and I think his argument for doom are often sloppy and don't hold up. (I think the risk is substantial but often the exact arguments EY gives don't work). And, his communication often fails to meet basic bars for clarity. I'd also probably agree with 'if EY was able to do so, impr... | 2023-04-30T20:59:26.374Z | 11 | t6hoW9zZ5CxBDxEH2 | mLubC65xXekk5tkug | [SEE NEW EDITS] No, *You* Need to Write Clearer | see-new-edits-no-you-need-to-write-clearer | https://www.thinkingmuchbetter.com/nickai/fieldbuilding/no-you-need-to-write-clearer.html | Nicholas Kross | 2023-04-29T05:04:01.559Z |
iPR9fqqyqEGs48rxf | My probabilities are very rough, but I'm feeling more like 1/3 ish today after thinking about it a bit more. Shrug.
As far as reasons for it being this high:
- Conflict seems plausible to get to this level of lethality (see edit, I think I was a bit unclear or incorrect)
- AIs might not care about acausal trade consi... | 2023-05-14T19:32:51.753Z | 1 | 4KgTjXxAFd6PkaN3h | 87EzRDAHkQJptLthE | But why would the AI kill us? | but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/87EzRDAHkQJptLthE/but-why-would-the-ai-kill-us | So8res | 2023-04-17T18:42:39.720Z |
y8NhHPqqqGWugZFuw | I don't quite think this point is right. Gradient descent had to have been able to produce the highly polysemantic model and pack things together in a way which got lower loss. This suggests that it can also change the underlying computation. I might need to provide more explanation for my point to be clear, but I thin... | 2023-05-19T17:51:36.011Z | 1 | D3ZFvEetR3HJPexya | w2TAEvME2yAG9MHeq | Gradient hacking is extremely difficult | gradient-hacking-is-extremely-difficult | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/w2TAEvME2yAG9MHeq/gradient-hacking-is-extremely-difficult | beren | 2023-01-24T15:45:46.518Z |
LJj24JqDvR9bPqemi | [Sorry for late reply]
> Analogously, conditional on things like gradient hacking being an issue at all, I'd expect the "hacker" to treat potential-training-objective-improvement as a scarce resource, which it generally avoids "spending" unless the expenditure will strengthen its own structure. Concretely, this probab... | 2023-05-19T18:16:45.879Z | 3 | Z6qZ9ME3EAMkx94G4 | rCJQAkPTEypGjSJ8X | How might we align transformative AI if it’s developed very soon? | how-might-we-align-transformative-ai-if-it-s-developed-very | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rCJQAkPTEypGjSJ8X/how-might-we-align-transformative-ai-if-it-s-developed-very | HoldenKarnofsky | 2022-08-29T15:42:08.985Z |
mJJ3ejDuW9zw8N38t |
> We can't be confident enough that it won't happen to safely rely on that assumption.
I'm not sure what motivation for [worst-case reasoning](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yTvBSFrXhZfL8vr5a/worst-case-thinking-in-ai-alignment) you're thinking about here. Maybe just that there are many disjunctive ways things can g... | 2023-05-19T18:24:01.320Z | 3 | Z6qZ9ME3EAMkx94G4 | rCJQAkPTEypGjSJ8X | How might we align transformative AI if it’s developed very soon? | how-might-we-align-transformative-ai-if-it-s-developed-very | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rCJQAkPTEypGjSJ8X/how-might-we-align-transformative-ai-if-it-s-developed-very | HoldenKarnofsky | 2022-08-29T15:42:08.985Z |
GZT7Ns6gqLbb9NMLj | > Pitting two models against each other in a zero-sum competition only works so long as both models actually learn the desired goals. Otherwise, they may be able to reach a compromise with each other and cooperate towards a non-zero-sum objective.
If training works well, then they can't collude on average during train... | 2023-05-27T16:15:45.033Z | 2 | null | A48amesEmqD8KNSmY | Conditional Prediction with Zero-Sum Training Solves Self-Fulfilling Prophecies | conditional-prediction-with-zero-sum-training-solves-self | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/A48amesEmqD8KNSmY/conditional-prediction-with-zero-sum-training-solves-self | Rubi J. Hudson | 2023-05-26T17:44:35.575Z |
8DqCckZ2kRMBDDoxm | > Here are some views, often held in a cluster:
I'm not sure exactly which clusters you're referring to, but I'll just assume that you're pointing to something like "people who aren't very into the sharp left turn and think that iterative, carefully bootstrapped alignment is a plausible strategy." If this isn't what y... | 2023-05-27T19:20:38.343Z | 9 | null | tNtiJp8dA6jMbgKbf | Hands-On Experience Is Not Magic | hands-on-experience-is-not-magic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tNtiJp8dA6jMbgKbf/hands-on-experience-is-not-magic | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-05-27T16:57:10.531Z |
4AeTGsdzKWbAhsGss | I would be more sympathetic if you made a move like, "I'll accept continuity through the human range of intelligence, and that we'll only have to align systems as collectively powerful as humans, but I still think that hands-on experience is only..." In particular, I think there is a real disagreement about the relativ... | 2023-05-27T19:31:35.500Z | 4 | 8DqCckZ2kRMBDDoxm | tNtiJp8dA6jMbgKbf | Hands-On Experience Is Not Magic | hands-on-experience-is-not-magic | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tNtiJp8dA6jMbgKbf/hands-on-experience-is-not-magic | Thane Ruthenis | 2023-05-27T16:57:10.531Z |
R6z36fXsPmwe8PNsB | When I try to interpret your points here, I come to the conclusion that you think humans, upon reflection, would cause human extinction (in favor of resources being used for something else).
Or at least that many/most humans would, upon reflection, prefer resources to be used for purposes other than preserving human l... | 2023-06-01T21:09:02.670Z | 3 | TbK2zqGETgAqT2bjx | 2NncxDQ3KBDCxiJiP | Cosmopolitan values don't come free | cosmopolitan-values-don-t-come-free | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2NncxDQ3KBDCxiJiP/cosmopolitan-values-don-t-come-free | So8res | 2023-05-31T15:58:16.974Z |
Wz8QGAmJYzgro3mHr | > **Does This Make Any Sense?**
> -----------------------------
I'm confused - it looks like the first paragraph of this section is taken from a prior post on *attribution patching*. | 2023-06-05T03:36:12.889Z | 1 | null | xh85KbTFhbCz7taD4 | How to Think About Activation Patching | how-to-think-about-activation-patching | https://www.neelnanda.io/mechanistic-interpretability/attribution-patching#how-to-think-about-activation-patching | Neel Nanda | 2023-06-04T14:17:42.264Z |
HWXwpdZtcmBMasis4 | Oops, somehow I missed that context.
Thanks for the clarification. | 2023-06-05T22:38:11.837Z | 1 | Ynjz2dKvKGK5srzMu | xh85KbTFhbCz7taD4 | How to Think About Activation Patching | how-to-think-about-activation-patching | https://www.neelnanda.io/mechanistic-interpretability/attribution-patching#how-to-think-about-activation-patching | Neel Nanda | 2023-06-04T14:17:42.264Z |
Myz6CX7BjeSq5heWR | > If I build a chatbot, and I can't jailbreak it, how do I determine whether that's because the chatbot is secure or because I'm bad at jailbreaking? How should AI scientists overcome Schneier's Law of LLMs?
FWIW, I think there aren't currently good benchmarks for alignment and the ones you list aren't very relevant.... | 2023-06-14T04:26:27.197Z | 8 | null | uyk5nn93HxJMsio98 | MetaAI: less is less for alignment. | metaai-less-is-less-for-alignment-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uyk5nn93HxJMsio98/metaai-less-is-less-for-alignment-1 | Cleo Nardo | 2023-06-13T14:08:45.209Z |
wrZ2cRXnqPX3sku3u | I'd like to register that I disagree with the claim that standard online RLHF requires adversarial robustness in AIs persay. (I agree that it requires that humans are adversarially robust to the AI, but this is a pretty different problem.)
In particular, the place where adversarial robustness shows up is in sample eff... | 2023-06-15T22:32:21.805Z | 11 | null | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
YAJKAuNe8fjMwrL4e | This is pretty close to my understanding, with one important objection.
Thanks for responding and trying to engage with my perspective.
## Objection
> If we repeat this iterative process enough times, we'll end up with a robust reward model.
I don't claim we'll necessarily ever get a fully robust reward model, just... | 2023-06-16T16:54:39.672Z | 1 | MZrLpvatKKPgkXGAr | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
ppWbqGoGFrSqPsfTP | Sorry, thanks for the correction.
I personally disagree on this being a good benchmark for outer alignment for various reasons, but it's good to understand the intention. | 2023-06-16T19:09:49.700Z | 3 | bmGCdyCyiAvxnHjLf | uyk5nn93HxJMsio98 | MetaAI: less is less for alignment. | metaai-less-is-less-for-alignment-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uyk5nn93HxJMsio98/metaai-less-is-less-for-alignment-1 | Cleo Nardo | 2023-06-13T14:08:45.209Z |
pL2afjDA6zpHCKiLo | > I'm a bit confused by the claim here, although I've only read the abstract and skimmed the paper so perhaps it'd become obvious from a closer read. As far as I can tell, the cited paper focuses on motion-planning, and considers a rather restricted setting of LQR policies.
I originally linked to the wrong paper! : ( ... | 2023-06-19T04:26:35.931Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
MSWt7tY5k5RauRsTo | > Suppose we condition on RLHF failing. At a high level, failures split into: (a) human labelers rewarded the wrong thing (e.g. fooling humans); (b) the reward model failed to predict human labelers judgement and rewarded the wrong thing (e.g. reward hacking); (c) RL produced a policy that is capable enough to be dange... | 2023-06-19T04:31:31.715Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
xAyYsRJjwcd7mb5hN | > Suppose we condition on RLHF failing. At a high level, failures split into: (a) human labelers rewarded the wrong thing (e.g. fooling humans); (b) the reward model failed to predict human labelers judgement and rewarded the wrong thing (e.g. reward hacking); (c) RL produced a policy that is capable enough to be dange... | 2023-06-19T04:36:51.859Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
QWY9ynu5XJHjnR29u | > Collecting fresh human data for that is prohibitive, so we rely on a reward model -- unfortunately that gets hacked.
Are you assuming that we can't collect human data online as the policy optimizes against the reward model? (People currently do collect data online to avoid getting hacked like this.) This case seems ... | 2023-06-19T04:40:03.770Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
MdStCtpHqjokboY8B | > This argument feels like it's proving too much. InstructGPT isn't perfect, but it does produce a lot less toxic output and follow instructions a lot better than the base model GPT-3. RLHF seems to work, and GPT-4 is even better, showing that it gets easier with bigger models. Why should we expect this trend to revers... | 2023-06-19T05:00:02.850Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
MHdciQ2ahhHk25uTF | Related to this. You say:
> I suspect this process would be much less sample efficient than vanilla RLHF, but it would have better safety properties, and measuring how much slower it is could be a good proxy for how severe the "robustness tax" is.
What specific safety properties are you thinking about?
As far as I c... | 2023-06-19T05:06:53.507Z | 1 | xAyYsRJjwcd7mb5hN | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
yphn7aBQGJ3AqJxCi | (Here's a possibly arcane remark. It's worth noting that I think *always correct* reward models are sufficient for high stakes alignment via runtime filtering (technically you just need to never give a very bad output decent reward). So, *always correct* reward models would be great if you could get them. Note that *al... | 2023-06-19T05:51:09.771Z | 1 | BmkwAzJfyLdQfHPBj | ncsxcf8CkDveXBCrA | AI Safety in a World of Vulnerable Machine Learning Systems | ai-safety-in-a-world-of-vulnerable-machine-learning-systems-1 | https://far.ai/post/2023-03-safety-vulnerable-world/ | AdamGleave | 2023-03-08T02:40:43.139Z |
azdKPP3DxKLwLzwhr | It's worth noting that you don't necessarily need to train models to actually do dangerous actions like literally executing on a takeover attempt, you can just train models which do something which is a proxy to coups (or a proxy to some part of coups).
The extent to which this proxy itself dangerous or generalizing i... | 2023-07-06T03:24:29.096Z | 7 | phFqC2EdDALCFwr56 | Hna4aoMwr6Qx9rHBs | [Linkpost] Introducing Superalignment | linkpost-introducing-superalignment | https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment | beren | 2023-07-05T18:23:18.419Z |
LxMHGCYFCJZFT5LjS | Given the current paradigm and technology it seems far safer to have an AI work on alignment research than highly difficult engineering tasks like nanotech. In particular, note that we only need to have an AI totally obsolete prior effors for this to be as good of a position as we could reasonably hope for.
In the cur... | 2023-07-12T03:24:35.651Z | 20 | HygD3rXhHahSFDAnT | NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X | OpenAI Launches Superalignment Taskforce | openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X/openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | Zvi | 2023-07-11T13:00:06.232Z |
65cy3SicpoWmMfdEa | Yeah, if this wasn't clear, I was refering to 'pivotal acts' which use hard engineering power sufficient for decisive strategic advantage. Things like 'brain emulations' or 'build a fully human interpretable AI design' don't seem particularly anti-social (but may be poor ideas for feasiblity reasons). | 2023-07-12T16:38:30.939Z | 1 | f5qw3ByewoyrTJ5D8 | NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X | OpenAI Launches Superalignment Taskforce | openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X/openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | Zvi | 2023-07-11T13:00:06.232Z |
vmvWSrdwnLk9wpRe8 | I think OpenAI is probably agnostic about how to use AIs to get more alignment research done.
That said, speeding up human researchers by large multipliers will eventually be required for the plan to be feasible. Like 10-100x rather than 1.5-4x. My guess is that you'll probably need AIs running considerably autonomous... | 2023-07-12T16:45:21.993Z | 2 | z2oophxk2YabSDp4g | NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X | OpenAI Launches Superalignment Taskforce | openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NSZhadmoYdjRKNq6X/openai-launches-superalignment-taskforce | Zvi | 2023-07-11T13:00:06.232Z |
AmxmAxmGub6d9GCmg | > Many proposed solutions to the alignment problem involve one “helper AI” providing a feedback signal steering the main AI system towards desirable behavior. Unfortunately, if the helper AI system is vulnerable to adversarial attack, then the main AI system will achieve a higher rating by the helper AI if it exploits ... | 2023-07-21T05:32:27.066Z | 4 | null | DCL3MmMiPsuMxP45a | Even Superhuman Go AIs Have Surprising Failure Modes | even-superhuman-go-ais-have-surprising-failure-modes | https://far.ai/post/2023-07-superhuman-go-ais/ | AdamGleave | 2023-07-20T17:31:35.814Z |
x4PvYmdxzxzRYhq9R | Amusingly, Betteridge's law of headlines applies. | 2023-08-10T00:51:35.566Z | 4 | null | oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz | LLMs are (mostly) not helped by filler tokens | llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz/llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | Kshitij Sachan | 2023-08-10T00:48:50.510Z |
r4ZGs8Jao3YF9kD78 | > beyond what was capable with Meta's finetuning
How do you know this is beyond what finetuning was capable of? I'd guess that Meta didn't bother to train against obvious sycophancy and if you trained against it, then it would go away. This work can still be interesting for other reasons, e.g. building into better int... | 2023-08-10T01:27:38.672Z | 4 | rbu6RftikDH3mDBuC | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
54hrsJT2msPP6CaWK | I'd guess that if you:
- Instructed human labelers to avoid sycophancy
- Gave human labelers examples of a few good and bad responses with respect to sycophancy
- Trained models on examples where sycophancy is plausibly/likely (e.g., pretrained models exhibit sycophancy a reasonable fraction of the time when generatin... | 2023-08-10T18:57:34.268Z | 5 | E6GcNZJCwxLHNWeJs | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
EEuAztJFgzgKWZCrA | More generally, I think arguments that human feedback is failing should ideally be of the form:
"Human labelers (with AI assistance) fail to notice this sort of bad behavior. Also, either this or nearby stuff can't just be resolved with trivial and obvious countermeasures like telling human labelers to be on the look ... | 2023-08-10T19:08:15.912Z | 1 | 54hrsJT2msPP6CaWK | raoeNarFYCxxyKAop | Modulating sycophancy in an RLHF model via activation steering | modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/raoeNarFYCxxyKAop/modulating-sycophancy-in-an-rlhf-model-via-activation | Nina Panickssery | 2023-08-09T07:06:50.859Z |
SXzzBGgJ6BK2ovd5y | [title was editted] | 2023-08-10T20:38:53.073Z | 3 | x4PvYmdxzxzRYhq9R | oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz | LLMs are (mostly) not helped by filler tokens | llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz/llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | Kshitij Sachan | 2023-08-10T00:48:50.510Z |
zEm2SkAGMXcKW75vt | > It should appear everywhere that one has variable context windows and should apply to pretty much all models or none, if that's the explanation. I would also expect the benefits to show up more broadly across benchmarks, rather than affect a very few dramatically.
It seems plausible to me that you'd see some sort o... | 2023-08-10T20:43:35.567Z | 2 | cD2RGLSNhdtq3qWri | oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz | LLMs are (mostly) not helped by filler tokens | llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz/llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | Kshitij Sachan | 2023-08-10T00:48:50.510Z |
dPCH8TqZkBMirzRb3 | Yep, agreed. But it's worth noting that other hypotheses for why this happens still have to explain why no other model has this behavior (including GPT3.5). So I'm not sure we take that much additional surprise from the capability having sudden onset. | 2023-08-11T00:25:01.836Z | 2 | Mheqaypr9ajae6H8u | oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz | LLMs are (mostly) not helped by filler tokens | llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz/llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | Kshitij Sachan | 2023-08-10T00:48:50.510Z |
4rSdFrvyrwsxebwLt | (Aside: Why do you think GPT3.5-turbo (most recent release) isn't MOE? I'd guess that if GPT4 is MOE, GPT3.5 is also.) | 2023-08-12T01:00:25.605Z | 3 | Cn8i7KpCaGmc9uoxB | oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz | LLMs are (mostly) not helped by filler tokens | llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oSZ2xTxEMZh9f3Yaz/llms-are-mostly-not-helped-by-filler-tokens | Kshitij Sachan | 2023-08-10T00:48:50.510Z |
5w4iYdP3A5yXN9qbu | Driving optimally might be AGI complete, but you don't necessarily need to drive optimally, it should be sufficient to beat typical human drivers for safety (this will depend on the regulatory regime of course).
It might be that the occurrences where avoiding an accident is AGI complete are lower per mile than the cas... | 2023-08-15T04:41:17.589Z | 5 | wgh28sKKWrJafcygF | A5YQqDEz9QKGAZvn6 | AGI is easier than robotaxis | agi-is-easier-than-robotaxis | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/A5YQqDEz9QKGAZvn6/agi-is-easier-than-robotaxis | Daniel Kokotajlo | 2023-08-13T17:00:29.901Z |
7fNRMke9Gc4QghYyf | After spending a while thinking about interpretability, my current stance is:
- Let's define *Mechanistic interpretability* as "A subfield of interpretability that uses bottom-up approaches, generally by corresponding low-level components such as circuits or neurons to components of human-understandable algorithms and... | 2023-08-18T16:25:08.823Z | 63 | null | LNA8mubrByG7SFacm | Against Almost Every Theory of Impact of Interpretability | against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LNA8mubrByG7SFacm/against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | Charbel-Raphaël | 2023-08-17T18:44:41.099Z |
wmxZwAHZrnyaytpnr | For mechanistic interpretabilty, very ambitious success looks something like:
- Have some decomposition of the model or the behavior of the model into parts.
- For any given randomly selected part, you should almost always be able build up a very good understanding of this part in isolation.
- By "very good" I mean... | 2023-08-18T16:42:27.935Z | 34 | 7fNRMke9Gc4QghYyf | LNA8mubrByG7SFacm | Against Almost Every Theory of Impact of Interpretability | against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LNA8mubrByG7SFacm/against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | Charbel-Raphaël | 2023-08-17T18:44:41.099Z |
uH2XGLsEz4gghfqjq | 2023-08-18T16:46:40.368Z | 0 | 7fNRMke9Gc4QghYyf | LNA8mubrByG7SFacm | Against Almost Every Theory of Impact of Interpretability | against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LNA8mubrByG7SFacm/against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | Charbel-Raphaël | 2023-08-17T18:44:41.099Z | |
Npzm3cfgQxtyha84z | The main reason why I think mechanistic interpretability is very far from ambitious success is that current _numbers_ are extremely bad and what people explain is extremely cherry picked. Like people's explanations typically result in performance which is worse than that of much, much tinier models even though heavy ch... | 2023-08-18T16:49:00.923Z | 26 | wmxZwAHZrnyaytpnr | LNA8mubrByG7SFacm | Against Almost Every Theory of Impact of Interpretability | against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LNA8mubrByG7SFacm/against-almost-every-theory-of-impact-of-interpretability-1 | Charbel-Raphaël | 2023-08-17T18:44:41.099Z |
vyGGXuEiyeJJQfkcX | I believe that the section on decision theory is somewhat misguided in several ways. Specifically, I don't perceive FDT as a critical error. However, I should note that I'm not an expert on decision theory, so please consider my opinion with a grain of salt.
(I generally agree with the statements "Eliezer is excessive... | 2023-08-27T02:23:45.230Z | 11 | null | TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj | Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong | eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj/eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | Bentham's Bulldog | 2023-08-27T01:06:37.355Z |
tXt2HCkutcMLwFWCA | > And as Schwarz points out, in the twin case, you'll get less utility by following FDT--you don't always want to be a FDTist.
I can't seem to find this in the linked blog post. (I see discussion of the twin case, but not a case where you get less utility from precommiting to follow FDT at the start of time.)
> I fi... | 2023-08-27T02:41:48.718Z | 4 | JEHkQ9WFfyfoXgmKn | TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj | Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong | eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj/eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | Bentham's Bulldog | 2023-08-27T01:06:37.355Z |
j7sEkyoRcTLE8oGFY | > Sometimes rationality will be bad for you--if there's a demon who tortures all rational people, for example
At some point this gets down to semantics. I think a reasonable question to answer is "what decision rule should be chosen by an engineer who wants to build an agent scoring the most utility across its lifetim... | 2023-08-27T02:49:45.558Z | 14 | JEHkQ9WFfyfoXgmKn | TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj | Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong | eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj/eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | Bentham's Bulldog | 2023-08-27T01:06:37.355Z |
ifdAcBtAYTq8f7zk8 | Cool, so you maybe agree that CDT agents would want to self modify into something like FDT agents (if they could). Then I suppose we might just disagree on the semantics behind the word rational.
(Note that CDT agents don't exactly self-modify into FDT agents, just something close.) | 2023-08-27T02:51:31.153Z | 3 | EsHSTeruQECfACBYA | TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj | Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong | eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj/eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | Bentham's Bulldog | 2023-08-27T01:06:37.355Z |
ECHqDr4sfbutiDRjs | As far as I can tell, the procreation case isn't defined well enough in Schwarz for me to enage with it. In particular, in what exact way are the decision of my father and I entangled? (Just saying the father follows FDT isn't enough.) But, I do think there is going to be a case basically like this where I bite the bul... | 2023-08-27T02:54:36.411Z | 4 | EsHSTeruQECfACBYA | TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj | Eliezer Yudkowsky Is Frequently, Confidently, Egregiously Wrong | eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TjyyngWFYvQWPpNNj/eliezer-yudkowsky-is-frequently-confidently-egregiously | Bentham's Bulldog | 2023-08-27T01:06:37.355Z |
hwndp2MyvN8u9aRCe | My cached state is that the A/H100 vs 4090 price gap is mostly price discrimination rather than a large difference in the actual manufacturing cost.
I think price discrimination is very common in computing hardware and nvidia happens to have a quite powerful monopoly right now for various reasons.
Note that [4090s te... | 2023-08-31T03:45:44.524Z | 20 | null | nXcHe7t4rqHMjhzau | Report on Frontier Model Training | report-on-frontier-model-training | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TsYkDYtV6BKiCN9PAOirRAy3TrNDu2XncUZ5UZfaAKA/edit?usp=sharing | YafahEdelman | 2023-08-30T20:02:46.317Z |
pPBNCLGvJ5FCo63Lr | > Also, such a regulation seems like it would be illegal in the US. While the government does have wide latitude to regulate commercial activities that impact multiple states, this is rather specifically a proposal that would regulate all activity (even models that never get released!). I'm unaware of any precedent for... | 2023-08-31T03:59:16.751Z | 10 | QX2rykLvone6rhjxH | unwRBRQivd2LYRfuP | Introducing the Center for AI Policy (& we're hiring!) | introducing-the-center-for-ai-policy-and-we-re-hiring | https://www.aipolicy.us/blog/hiring | Thomas Larsen | 2023-08-28T21:17:11.703Z |
xBPpbLsgfMuee72WY | > So far, I'm confident that our proposals will not impede the vast majority of AI developers, but if we end up receiving feedback that this isn't true, we'll either rethink our proposals or remove this claim from our advocacy efforts. Also, as stated in a comment below:
It seems to me that for AI regulation to have ... | 2023-08-31T04:26:28.457Z | 7 | cfShuRQC88EuojNP2 | unwRBRQivd2LYRfuP | Introducing the Center for AI Policy (& we're hiring!) | introducing-the-center-for-ai-policy-and-we-re-hiring | https://www.aipolicy.us/blog/hiring | Thomas Larsen | 2023-08-28T21:17:11.703Z |
hxJugdweDjEkwvhHf | Presumably, your hope for avoiding this flop threshold becoming burdensome soon is:
> As AI advances and dangerous systems become increasingly easy to develop at a fraction of the current cost, the definition of frontier AI will need to change. This is why we need an expert-led administration that can adapt the criter... | 2023-08-31T04:30:03.746Z | 4 | xBPpbLsgfMuee72WY | unwRBRQivd2LYRfuP | Introducing the Center for AI Policy (& we're hiring!) | introducing-the-center-for-ai-policy-and-we-re-hiring | https://www.aipolicy.us/blog/hiring | Thomas Larsen | 2023-08-28T21:17:11.703Z |
FG4YXDAL7sATcbwrg | > I also think 70% on MMLU is extremely low, since that's about the level of ChatGPT 3.5, and that system is very far from posing a risk of catastrophe.
Very far in qualitative capability or very far in effective flop?
I agree on the qualitative capability, but disagree on the effective flop.
It seems quite plausi... | 2023-08-31T04:32:59.450Z | 4 | LsrzDKMzhyykaekvv | unwRBRQivd2LYRfuP | Introducing the Center for AI Policy (& we're hiring!) | introducing-the-center-for-ai-policy-and-we-re-hiring | https://www.aipolicy.us/blog/hiring | Thomas Larsen | 2023-08-28T21:17:11.703Z |
FSDEb7qnKHFGeujgQ | I'd guess that the best would be to define a specific flop or dollar threshold and have this steadily decrease over time at a conservative rate (e.g. 2x lower threshold each year). | 2023-08-31T17:32:50.086Z | 6 | xBPpbLsgfMuee72WY | unwRBRQivd2LYRfuP | Introducing the Center for AI Policy (& we're hiring!) | introducing-the-center-for-ai-policy-and-we-re-hiring | https://www.aipolicy.us/blog/hiring | Thomas Larsen | 2023-08-28T21:17:11.703Z |
cFFuT5BqfGogyGhij | I'm extremely confused how extrapolating out the curve can possibly get you 1000x improvement in FLOP/$ within 7 years.
What happens if you backtest this autoregressive model?
Can you show the plot for this fit? (I can't seem to see the image in this post, maybe that contains the fit?) | 2023-10-06T17:47:38.508Z | 0 | null | gLJP2sBqXDsQWLAgy | Super-Exponential versus Exponential Growth in Compute Price-Performance | super-exponential-versus-exponential-growth-in-compute-price | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gLJP2sBqXDsQWLAgy/super-exponential-versus-exponential-growth-in-compute-price | moridinamael | 2023-10-06T16:23:56.714Z |
PhfDvfu9N27FHkoYt | > - A capabilities evaluation is defined as “a model evaluation designed to test whether a model could do some task if it were trying to. ...
> - A safety evaluation is defined as “a model evaluation designed to test under what circumstances a model would actually try to do some task. ...
I propose changing the term f... | 2023-10-14T21:02:30.075Z | 25 | null | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
nAcCWYX2RioQzWoTM | I sometimes refer to capability based arguments as *control arguments*.
Then, we can name two lines of defense:
- The control line of defense: Would the AI succeed at causing bad outcomes if it tried?
- The propensity line of defense: Would the AI try to cause bad outcomes?
It's possible to develop techniques which ... | 2023-10-14T21:25:50.436Z | 17 | PhfDvfu9N27FHkoYt | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
FKjrEhCo6nybPogXL | An important thing to emphasize with control arguments is that it seems quite unlikely that control arguments can be made workable for very superhuman models. (At least for the notion of "control arguments" which can be readily assessed with non-insane capability evaluations.) | 2023-10-15T04:07:36.363Z | 9 | nAcCWYX2RioQzWoTM | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
3KZYNAo2J2Mn3XjQM | Sure. I just mean "try to do things which result in bad outcomes from our perspective". | 2023-10-16T23:42:48.394Z | 2 | fYNosthqFvgjRgmkA | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
sjtD58PGdDXoBi3ad | It seems like there are strong reasons to expect that the post AI coalitions will look very different from the *current* world economy, though I agree that they might look like *a* world economy. For instance, imagine world GDP grows by 100x. It seems totally plausible that Google/TSMC/OpenAI revenue grows by 50x rela... | 2023-10-17T03:11:11.137Z | 4 | vLuFmLw3DAYARrCsn | PKy8NuNPknenkDY74 | Soft takeoff can still lead to decisive strategic advantage | soft-takeoff-can-still-lead-to-decisive-strategic-advantage | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PKy8NuNPknenkDY74/soft-takeoff-can-still-lead-to-decisive-strategic-advantage | Daniel Kokotajlo | 2019-08-23T16:39:31.317Z |
oaQrmW48xC2RPkC7b | I'm not going to respond to everything you're saying here right now. It's pretty likely I won't end up responding to everything you're saying at any point; so apologies for that.
Here are some key claims I want to make:
- **Serial speed is key**: Speeding up theory work (like e.g. ARC theory) by 5-10x should be quite... | 2023-10-17T22:47:53.931Z | 15 | X8RMk5TTq7wcFtXdF | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
k5qEjsg2DbjaRF76m | This seems like a good thing for labs to do[^disagree]. I'd go one step earlier and propose that labs make a clear and explicit page (on their website or similar) stating their views on the *risk* from powerful AI systems. The proposal given in this post seems somewhat more ambitious and costly than the thing I'm propo... | 2023-10-18T03:37:10.556Z | 58 | null | 6HEYbsqk35butCYTe | Labs should be explicit about why they are building AGI | labs-should-be-explicit-about-why-they-are-building-agi | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6HEYbsqk35butCYTe/labs-should-be-explicit-about-why-they-are-building-agi | peterbarnett | 2023-10-17T21:09:20.711Z |
2Xmativ6mgEenjG6H | On RSPs vs pauses, my basic take is that hardcore pauses are better than RSPs and RSPs are considerably better than weak pauses.
Best: we first prevent hardware progress and stop H100 manufactoring for a bit, then we prevent AI algorithmic progress, and then we stop scaling (ideally in that order). Then, we heavily in... | 2023-10-18T04:11:08.092Z | 25 | null | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
WkBAQ3zmiYHkGrncj | I happen to think that the Anthropic RSP is fine for what it is, but it just doesn't actually make any interesting claims yet. The key thing is that they're committing to actually having an ASL-4 criteria and safety argument in the future. From my perspective, the Anthropic RSP effectively is an outline for the sort of... | 2023-10-18T04:17:53.484Z | 25 | ACE9W5FzFaixtd5uZ | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
fDxZuFnoAisyovqNP | > - **"So coordination to do better than this would be great".**
> - I'd be curious to know what you'd want to aim for here - both in a mostly ideal world, and what seems most expedient.
As far as the ideal, I happened to write something about in [another comment](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rs... | 2023-10-18T21:33:26.175Z | 10 | LG3EGzT4g2XKv4sZu | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
kL5JtRwEvxirBRCAb | > (Oh and I edited my previous comment for clarity: I guess you were disagreeing with my clumsily misleading wording, rather than what I meant(??))
Corresponding comment text:
> This makes sense, but seems to rely on the human spending most of their time tackling well-defined but non-trivial problems where an AI doesn... | 2023-10-19T16:23:25.900Z | 4 | 8yrnmkSrqbn9rGqGy | mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ | RSPs are pauses done right | rsps-are-pauses-done-right | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mcnWZBnbeDz7KKtjJ/rsps-are-pauses-done-right | evhub | 2023-10-14T04:06:02.709Z |
7bTfJCYjNrcy6rgrq | Any reason to protest scaling instead of hardware or algorithmic development? (IDK if a comment on this post is the best place to say this, but I couldn't think of a better place.)
I'd probably be in favor of slower scaling at current margins, but I don't feel super confident in this. However, I'm strongly in favor of... | 2023-10-20T18:28:52.283Z | 23 | null | abBtKF857Ejsgg9ab | TOMORROW: the largest AI Safety protest ever! | tomorrow-the-largest-ai-safety-protest-ever | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/abBtKF857Ejsgg9ab/tomorrow-the-largest-ai-safety-protest-ever | Holly_Elmore | 2023-10-20T18:15:18.276Z |
G2cGSSQ6qkgzwPApH | > The strongest critique of developmental interpretability we know is the following: while it is established that phase transitions exist in neural network training, it is not yet clear how common they are, and whether they make a good target for alignment.
Is it established that phase transitions exist in the trainin... | 2023-10-22T17:06:33.519Z | 29 | null | nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL | Announcing Timaeus | announcing-timaeus | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL/announcing-timaeus | Jesse Hoogland | 2023-10-22T11:59:03.938Z |
8ye3KboEWFhb6uGvt | More generally, I wish that when people used the term "phase transition", they clarified whether they meant "s-shaped loss curves" or some more precise notion. Often, people are making a non-mechanistic claim when they say "phase transition" (we observed a loss curve with a s-shape), but there are also mechanistic clai... | 2023-10-22T18:03:17.477Z | 20 | G2cGSSQ6qkgzwPApH | nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL | Announcing Timaeus | announcing-timaeus | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL/announcing-timaeus | Jesse Hoogland | 2023-10-22T11:59:03.938Z |
LiT7pk9GitcqswAeP | Thanks for the detailed response!
So, to check my understanding:
The toy cases discussed in [Multi-Component Learning and S-Curves](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RKDQCB6smLWgs2Mhr/multi-component-learning-and-s-curves) are clearly *dynamical phase transitions*. (It's easy to establish *dynamical phase transitions* ... | 2023-10-23T01:04:19.171Z | 7 | RRT6ZcGvRrt4bRiPZ | nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL | Announcing Timaeus | announcing-timaeus | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nN7bHuHZYaWv9RDJL/announcing-timaeus | Jesse Hoogland | 2023-10-22T11:59:03.938Z |
mSpR9jhmMgW9CjPMD | I think this post is quite misleading and unnecessarily adversarial.
~~I'm not sure if I want to engage futher, I might give examples of this later.~~ (See examples below)
(COI: I often talk to and am friendly with many of the groups criticized in this post.)
| 2023-10-24T15:30:51.365Z | 105 | null | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
EvpramjkJxzsHk7nx | Examples:
- It seems to conflate scaling pauses (which aren't clearly very useful) with pausing all AI related progress (hardware, algorithmic development, software). Many people think that scaling pauses aren't clearly that useful due to overhang issues, but hardware pauses are pretty great. However, hardware develop... | 2023-10-24T15:53:56.567Z | 135 | mSpR9jhmMgW9CjPMD | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
JNDTaAx55LXoehHxs | - The title doesn't seem supported by the content. The post doesn't argue that people are being cowardly or aren't being strategic (it does argue they are incorrect and seeking power in a immoral way, but this is different). | 2023-10-24T16:35:37.804Z | 29 | EvpramjkJxzsHk7nx | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
GwnFZf6o6JoxdxcYq | As an aside, I think it's good for people and organizations (especially AI labs) to clearly state their views on AI risk, see e.g., [my comment here](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6HEYbsqk35butCYTe/labs-should-be-explicit-about-why-they-are-building-agi?commentId=k5qEjsg2DbjaRF76m). So I agree with this aspect of the... | 2023-10-24T17:46:31.468Z | 12 | mSpR9jhmMgW9CjPMD | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
ttwqQEifv4tzgaEAD | (Random note: I think this post would get more attention if the title more clearly communicated what this post is about. Maybe something like "Who is Harry Potter? Some predictions about when unlearning will fail.". Feel free to totally ignore this comment.) | 2023-10-24T17:55:56.544Z | 12 | null | B4vgbeXMGxEnEwY8d | Who is Harry Potter? Some predictions. | who-is-harry-potter-some-predictions | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/B4vgbeXMGxEnEwY8d/who-is-harry-potter-some-predictions | Donald Hobson | 2023-10-24T16:14:17.860Z |
AqmBErPdJpLQPqCWN | Thanks for the response, one quick clarification in case this isn't clear.
On:
> > For instance, I think that well implemented RSPs required by a regulatory agency can reduce risk to <5% (partially by stopping in worlds where this appears needed).
>
> I assume this would be a crux with Connor/Gabe (and I think I'm at... | 2023-10-24T18:05:36.912Z | 10 | SJW9LP2786phKksXG | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
nMdmee2danZ9bGwj9 | > > Calling something a "pragmatic middle ground" doesn't imply that there aren't better options
> I think the objection here is more about what is loosely suggested by the language used, and what is not said - not about logical implications. What is loosely suggested by the ARC Evals language is that it's not sensibl... | 2023-10-24T18:16:11.979Z | 6 | SJW9LP2786phKksXG | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
Z32iFmtwonxvtmWcn | Sure, but seems reasonably likely that it would be hard to get that much international coordination. | 2023-10-25T20:52:38.329Z | 4 | ovtAqi5aju7tT3bhs | qtTW6BFrxWw4iHcjf | Lying is Cowardice, not Strategy | lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | https://cognition.cafe/p/lying-is-cowardice-not-strategy | Connor Leahy | 2023-10-24T13:24:25.450Z |
zWaHmn8nGnomSG9jF | Why do you think RSPs don't put the burden of proof on labs to show that scaling is safe?
> I think the RSP frame is wrong, and I don't want regulators to use it as a building block. My understanding is that labs are refusing to adopt an evals regime in which the burden of proof is on labs to show that scaling is safe... | 2023-10-29T18:09:18.025Z | 10 | DyyGinph6hbwiHHo5 | Np5Q3Mhz2AiPtejGN | We're Not Ready: thoughts on "pausing" and responsible scaling policies | we-re-not-ready-thoughts-on-pausing-and-responsible-scaling-4 | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Np5Q3Mhz2AiPtejGN/we-re-not-ready-thoughts-on-pausing-and-responsible-scaling-4 | HoldenKarnofsky | 2023-10-27T15:19:33.757Z |
b3dvHdXv8J4uwCacX | I think Anthropic's write up and current position is considerably better than OpenAI's because they actually have a concrete policy with evals and commitments. Of course, when OpenAI releases an RDP my position might change considerably. | 2023-11-01T00:38:33.623Z | 22 | null | ms3x8ngwTfep7jBue | Thoughts on the AI Safety Summit company policy requests and responses | thoughts-on-the-ai-safety-summit-company-policy-requests-and | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ms3x8ngwTfep7jBue/thoughts-on-the-ai-safety-summit-company-policy-requests-and | So8res | 2023-10-31T23:54:09.566Z |
mYH8aSsdBEAupFtQN | I think I basically agree with "current models don't seem very helpful for bioterror" and as far as I can tell, "current papers don't seem to do the controlled experiments needed to *legibly* learn that much either way about the usefulness of current models" (though generically evaluating bio capabilities prior to actu... | 2023-11-02T18:56:41.093Z | 55 | null | ztXsmnSdrejpfmvn7 | Propaganda or Science: A Look at Open Source AI and Bioterrorism Risk | propaganda-or-science-a-look-at-open-source-ai-and | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ztXsmnSdrejpfmvn7/propaganda-or-science-a-look-at-open-source-ai-and | 1a3orn | 2023-11-02T18:20:29.569Z |
JL5Z8Ahzbgj8aPqaB | > - Sadly, I’m not confident the answer is “yes,” and this is the main reason I only ~50% endorse this post. Two reasons I’m worried evaluators might fail:
> - [...]
> - The world might change in ways that enable new threat models after camelidAI is open-sourced. For example, suppose that camelidAI + GPT-SoTA isn... | 2023-11-03T16:56:54.536Z | 12 | null | WLYBy5Cus4oRFY3mu | Thoughts on open source AI | thoughts-on-open-source-ai | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLYBy5Cus4oRFY3mu/thoughts-on-open-source-ai | Sam Marks | 2023-11-03T15:35:42.067Z |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Ryan Greenblatt — LessWrong Writing
All of Ryan Greenblatt's public writing on LessWrong, scraped from the LessWrong GraphQL API.
Coverage: 2019-08-23 → 2026-03-26.
Configs
| Config | Rows | Description |
|---|---|---|
posts |
66 | Long-form posts authored (or co-authored) by Ryan |
shortforms |
50 | Shortform posts |
comments |
1,123 | Ryan's comments on others' (and his own) posts, with post context |
Schemas
posts
id,title,slug,url,body(markdown)posted_at(ISO 8601),karma,word_count,comment_countcoauthors(list of usernames)
shortforms
id,body,posted_at,karma,word_count,comment_count
comments
id,body,posted_at,karma,parent_comment_id- Post context:
post_id,post_title,post_slug,post_url,post_author,post_posted_at
Source
Scraped via the LessWrong GraphQL API. Cross-posted Alignment Forum content is included (it lives on the same backend). Content is also publicly available at the source URLs.
License
The text is © Ryan Greenblatt and his coauthors. This dataset packages public LessWrong writing under CC BY 4.0, matching the LessWrong default license. Coauthored posts retain their respective coauthors' rights.
- Downloads last month
- 24